Ah ok that makes sense. Rhetorical questions and me do not go together well. Also the methods of transferring HIV have been known for a while. And there are at least theories of how it was started if not any proof.

Good god, are people still this clueless about AIDS nowadays? I think this why it's still such a problem, because the initial shock factor has worn off, and people can now get drugs to live a relatively long life, so it doesn't seem like such a big deal, so people aren't educating themselves. IT IS A BIG DEAL. REAL. BIG. DEAL.

But people believed it up to the 19th century! Why not today?

(And though I've heard that there may be an increase in unsafe-sex as treatment for HIV and AIDS has advanced, I think the biggest issue is it's still seen as a disease that people 'deserve' to get because of their actions.)

Consider the source, the people that think that the AIDS virus is "created" via gay sex or intravenous drug use also probably think that humans were "created".

I am asking questions to debunk myths based on how the disease is spread versus created. I'll admit that I'm not educated as much as I'd like to be on the topic of HIV and AIDS. But over the years I've heard conspiracies and theories and blatant bull@h!t about what the virus is or is not. Everything ranging from "it's God's curse on the gays" (Bull$h!t) to the introduction of a different Y chromosome into the bloodstream (theory) and even it being a product of government funded chemical warfare (conspiracy theory).

But in the 25-30 years since the outbreak really took off, no one has ever come forward and said "We have found that the virus is created by conditions x and y combined with agitation from z." I may not have a degree in biomedicine, but how is it illogical to think that knowing what creates the virus can help find its cure? Don't you have to know what's wrong in order to fix it?

We don't need to know what creates the virus. From my understanding doctors still don't really understand how viruses are even possible and do what they do. That being said they now how to help protect against them.

Of course, lots of people who know that the AIDS virus is not "created" via gay sex or intravenous drug use also think that humans were "created." Even many who accept evolution still would say humans were "created." :rolleyes:

That's really the wrong way to look at it. A virus isn't created, unless you're talking about how it first came to be. A virus is transmitted. An organism that is host to the virus transmits it to another organism. And we know how it's transmitted.

Viruses are not created by conditions. Viruses mutate. It could be that the virus mutated from a harmless form to what is now the AIDS virus. Mutation is a random process. The viruses with "successful" mutations multiply. See natural selection.

There is not really an excuse for you to think that viruses spontaneously appear following the swapping of needles or engaging in sex. You're theoretically college educated. I don't believe that you asked it to dispel the myths of others.

HIV somehow mutated and spread to humans 30ish years ago (or spread to humans before that and mutated into its current virulent form later). The fact that we don't know the details of that mutation incident doesn't change the fact that it happened. (It doesn't even matter if it was intentional - tin foil hat - or not.) The flu did the same thing, the cold did the same thing. The reasons we can't vaccinate for HIV but can for the flu have nothing to do with its origins and everything to do with its mutation rates and the characteristics of retroviruses. Not to mention the public perception of HIV as a 3rd world /bad behavior disease.

The two examples I gave are two of the most common ways the virus is transmitted. Correct? I could've listed other ways to swap blood and other bodily fluids if you like. For instance, are we sure that clean blood transfusions or organ transplants are safe? What if some of the viruses in this world are caused by the body trying to reject the foreign substance? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that they are not?

But getting to my point, which I failed to bring across, is the virus, any virus has to start from somewhere or something. They have their own specific genetic makeup. Their own DNA. If scientists can trace the DNA of our species and countless others back to their origins, why can't they do it with this or any other virus? Why can't they then use that information to help fight it?

Seriously. How did you pass biology? DID you pass biology? You're on the internet, it is full of information. Go read some of it before you come back and try and talk about it again.

Be careful who you say that to. I believe in the creation theory as a Christian, but I by no means think the HIV was created by gay sex, IV drug use, or as a means to get rid of undesirables or an entire race of people. Further more, regardless of behavior, no one deserves to contract the HIV virus or any other kind of illness.

We can agree to disagree, but I find your "created" comment to be outrageous.

Agreed to the above. I believe that humans were "created", but I don't believe that HIV was magically created to punish the sinful.

Re: creationism.... what's up cognitive dissonance?

/thread.

Creationism is one of those words that has become narrowed over time, now almost exclusively associated with fundamentalism and a particular view on creation vs evolution.

Belief in creation and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive. Theories of theistic evolution (fairly widely accepted in Catholicism and mainline Protestantism) and evolutionary creation have been around almost as long as the theory of evolution. Darwin even essentially posited theistic evolution in his earlier writings, though he later backed away from that.